Prisoners to be called 'men' and cells 'rooms' under new guidelines.
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Quite possibly, but that isn't what he said nor what I disputed.
Infidels not in cells.
It's not all about stopping them re-offending, long(er) sentences are supposed to be a deterrent prior to the crime being committed and obviously justice for the victim(s) in some cases. You can't possibly know if a person will re-offend or not but what you can do is make it clear that committing a particular crime to begin with shouldn't be worthwhile.
People not going to prison at all in the first place because they know it will be a severe price to pay for committing crime is a bigger success for me than any re-offence rate.
Last edited:
Soldato
The thing is as far as I can see there's very little evidence that longer sentences actually act as a deterrent. The "justice for the victims" angle is a valid argument, but not one I sign up to particularly. In terms of re-offending you absolutely can't be sure whether or not they will re-offend when you sentence, but the point isn't about predicting re-offending rates, it's about implementing a system that gives as many people as possible the opportunity for rehabilitation.
For me the argument is summed up pretty well in the article's final two paragraphs:
Caporegime
Here's some evidence
https://www.economist.com/free-exch...ntences-do-deter-crime-but-only-up-to-a-point
So they do work to a certain point. Either way I care less about rehabilitation of criminals and rather prevention of crime in the first place.
Soldato
Paywall so I can't read it unfortunately. Here's a BBC report that doesn't back up the economist view:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime
It's a bit of a mixed picture when you look at sentencing length but I think it can be said with some authority that longer sentences clearly don't have a significant effect, at least not to the level of people's expectation.
You say you want to prevent crime in the first place, if prison isn't a strong enough deterrent, and making sentences longer won't help significantly then surely in the context of this thread you need to strengthen policing and other linked community services? Which is what I've been advocating from the start.
So you tackle crime in the first instance through police and services funding. But then you still have crime being committed by repeat offenders and first time offenders who slipped the net. So you have two options. Excessive incarceration which will stop recidivism until release but is heavy handed and costly, or rehabilitation, which reduce prison costs and has a net gain if the person goes on to be a productive member of society.
If it's possible why wouldn't you do it?
From the article:
So a shorter mandatory minimum sentence with a long(er) discretionary extension period could be more effective than a longer mandatory minimum… it doesn’t necessarily support the premise that ‘longer sentences are an effective deterrent’…
Furthermore, if harsher sentencing was the perfect solution for deterring crime, countries with the death penalty should have no crime where that punishment is applicable, yet that’s clearly not the case.
The issue is, people are not the rational actors that economists and policymakers assume them to be. Most criminals believe that they won’t get caught (or that they won’t receive the maximum punishment if they are caught). As such, deterrents like long sentences don’t work.
We’d be much better off tackling the root causes of crime and reducing reoffending rates than locking everyone up forever.
Caporegime
What it's showing however is that mandatory minimum is of benefit. Take the ****** that tried to break in to my house last month. He's been in court 4 times for attempted/burglary and not once has he received a custodial sentence. He then keeps reoffending. He broke in to 2 people's homes on the night He tried mine. A week before Christmas. That was 2 families Christmases ruined. If he'd been locked up that wouldn't have happened.
Soldato
This is true: short sentences are no benefit to anyone. Keep people in for a month, no rehabilitation is possible, keep them in for a year, and it is.
But we should be using the time to rehabilitate. Not to punish. That's if we actually want better outcomes for society, and not just the warm fuzzy feeling of revenge.
The goal of prison isn't for a crime free society, that's not realistic and can't be achieved with any system.
Not to even reduce crime?
Crime isn't going down in the USA by jailing more and more people.
The conditions people experience isn't the punishment, the punishment is the loss of liberty - the ability to go where you want and do what you want whenever you want.
If making the prison environment less de-humanising results in better rehabilitation and reduced re-offending rates then that has to be a good thing
If making the prison environment less de-humanising results in better rehabilitation and reduced re-offending rates then that has to be a good thing
Soldato
Prison is not a holiday camp. It doesn't matter what they say regarding your cell, it is what it is.
When your stuck in there you feel it and that is the punishment. No control over your life, no access to the outside world bar a few phone calls and most of all the pain you feel not being able to see your family.
Health and Freedom, two things to cherish.
When your stuck in there you feel it and that is the punishment. No control over your life, no access to the outside world bar a few phone calls and most of all the pain you feel not being able to see your family.
Health and Freedom, two things to cherish.
Caporegime
Sentences are too short in this country anyway due to the way we use concurrent sentencing.
Case we criminals and those with 10+ convictions who are still on our streets are proof enough of this.
Not everyone .can be treated or rehabilitated and some just don't want to be. Therefore longer more severe penalties to deprive these hardened criminals of a life outside and take away their best years, giving society a chance to breathe is the only option.
Case we criminals and those with 10+ convictions who are still on our streets are proof enough of this.
Not everyone .can be treated or rehabilitated and some just don't want to be. Therefore longer more severe penalties to deprive these hardened criminals of a life outside and take away their best years, giving society a chance to breathe is the only option.
Are you going to pay for that? These prisons are already overrun and badly managed. What section of society should suffer to pay for more prison space and better trained guards that aren't also criminals in disguise?
We have children going hungry and having to eat out of ******* bins right in some places, would you rather we pilfer from their remaining free lunches to pay for that?
We have children going hungry and having to eat out of ******* bins right in some places, would you rather we pilfer from their remaining free lunches to pay for that?
Man of Honour
Yes: far lower than ours. It has been known for forty years that the secret to lowering recidivism is rehabilitation, but it's politically unpopular and the tabloids attack it. All politicians are scared of the tabloids, so one whiff of "soft on crime" and the politicians go back to mindless incarceration. Ironically, rehabilitation is far cheaper than prison. But then so it staying in a top class hotel.
Soldato
NAILED IT. Literally saved me time by typing this out myself
